It is NOT about "can't" assume 'anything'. It is about it is NOT necessary to assume 'any thing'.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:08 pmHe was mocking what you are incidentally doing by feeding it back at you. If you can't assume 'anything' as you can't overcome with concern, his questions justify HOW you are coming across.Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:25 pmIn case you were unaware "logik" was going to ask me what is the definition for EVERY word forever more to PROVE that NOTHING can be gained and KNOWN from and through language. To "logik" the only thing that works in the Universe is 'symbolic logic'.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:45 pm
I didn't see this when I wrote the last post to Age. I'm guessing that given if he holds that no word needs defining in what he responded to you, I'm not sure he'll comply with what I asked. If not, then there is nothing we can do to prove anything to him. I gave a reason why it is his burden to define the terms while not necessary for the proof of expansion. Maybe this will help.
"logik" said they will stop asking to define words when there is a word that does not "NEED" defining. I stated that OBVIOUSLY there is NO word that "NEEDS" defining, (but people WANT words defined. I also pointed out that now "logik" would stop, that is; If they are an honest person. The Truth of this became quickly OBVIOUS to SEE.
Now, OF COURSE the defining of words, in relation to what you are talking about, is EXTREMELY and VERY NECESSARY, especially in relation to what this topic is ACTUALLY ABOUT.
By the way IF you asked me some clarifying questions about what my ACTUAL VIEWS are here, instead of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS about what they COULD BE, then you would NOT have to write all of that what you just did here.
But WHY do you assume/belief that I would have to question EVERY thing?
I do NOT have to question any thing at all, NOW.
I am only ask clarifying questions for things like what facts do you use, as evidence to back up and support your ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS that the Universe is expanding, for example, so I KNOW EXACTLY what to counter and SHOW is incorrect. If I was, for example, to ASSUME what you use as facts and evidence, then I might counter some thing, which did NOT even need countering or was not even there to begin with, and then people can use my WRONG ways as a way to make their own BELIEFS even stronger.
Let us try this. Imagine if we want to LEARN about and DISCOVER things about the Universe, Itself, from our perspective without having ANY prior assumptions nor beliefs at all about what COULD BE the case.
If you are at least able to IMAGINE being OPEN like this, then let us just LOOK AT what IS. If we have already agreed on the names that we will use in our discussion about and for the things that we see, then we can proceed.
So, imagining standing on earth we look up at a cloudless, from our perspective, night sky. As far as we can see there are stars and relatively black space between those stars. As far as we can see with the physical eyes, through a telescope or not, there is NO limit/boundary. I ask you; If there was a limit/boundary, then what could it be made up of, how thick could it be, and if it were not infinitely thick, then what could be on the other side of it?
From the conceptual vision/"eyes" what do you see?
Is your conceptual vision block by some thing or does it go on forever?
If it is blocked by some thing, then what is it?
If it goes on forever/infinitely, the okay.
If you would like to answer these questions and continue doing this, then great. We can SEE what comes from it.
If, however, you do not, then so be it.
But the point so far is we do NOT 'have to' ASSUME any thing. We already have an idea of what the definitions are of the words we are using in our discussion about what we SEE when we OBSERVE just 'what IS', in relation to the Universe. And because we are NOT closed at all by prior assumptions and beliefs, if we have any query about what another means with the words they use, then we can just type the word into a search engine, observe what definition is provide and then see if we agree with and/or accept that definition or not. Then we just clarify with the other if this is correct or not. (But it makes things much quicker, simpler, and easier if we had done this earlier. This looking in a dictionary for definitions is NOT how the one called "logik" works because that one BELIEVES that the answers are in 'symbolic and/or numeric logic', and not in words).
I have a VIEW on this, which is: EVERY child is born a natural philosopher. They are born wondering, and with a very strong desire to learn more and anew. They are the ones with a True love-of-wisdom (a love of becoming wiser). However, and very sadly, this involves being Truly OPEN and because very young children are VERY OPEN, the human brain takes in what ever is around it from the environment, and then can all to quickly also LEARN to BELIEVE things, and then "JUSTIFY" things also, even if those things are completely wrong, false, and/or incorrect.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:08 pmI opened a thread for your concern on 'assumptions' called, On Denoting and Assuming.... There you can take on this issue without interfering in the general process of different topics. It is its own topic and might be more fruitful to separate this issue. You are appropriate to think this as a 'beginner' but come across like a kid going through his "Terrible Twos" where they always ask 'why' of every little thing.
When children at the ages of say what you call "terrible twos", which calling a child at about two years old "terrible" is just about one of the most terrible things that as a so called "responsible" adult could do, but I do digress, when these young children are just doing their natural thing by just WANTING to learn more they OBVIOUSLY they would just ask "WHY?" and "WHY?" and "WHY?", which is just what a naturally curious person would do. This is what just about EVERY young child DOES. However, because adults tell them, STOP ASKING WHY, and, ask them, in obviously 'do not ask me again voices', WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING WHY? Then, unfortunately, children can LEARN VERY to quickly to JUST STOP - ASKING WHY. The natural ponderer/inquirer/philosopher within ALL children becomes repeatedly stifled, until that person completely dies, and more unfortunately grows up into an adult in this 'dead' way.
So called "education" does NOT help in this regard also, as children are inevitably teased, ridiculed, and punished for NOT knowing things, and so, literally, become FAILURES in the eyes of the system, and their peers. The fear of making mistakes in learning PREVENTS them from wanting to learn more and the BELIEF that they are, now, "stupid" STOPS them from wanting to learn more, or anew.
But anyway I will LOOK AT that thread, if I remember.
That, maybe contrary to popular BELIEF, is a compliment to me.
Being a 'newbie' and NOT just an 'oldie' and just re-repeating the same 'old' incorrect, wrong, and false information, which has been passed on and keeps on getting passed on down the line, on this topic is welcoming news for me.
This reminds me of when the 'newbie' VIEW that the sun does NOT revolve around the earth first started being expressed. Although it was a seemingly very annoying VIEW and maybe did not "fit in with" the so called 'philosophical etiquette' in its time, it is much BETTER to keep persisting with what one KNOWS IS RIGHT, instead of just copying what is OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
So, if mentioning that it is OBVIOUSLY your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which is what is PREVENTING and STOPPING you from moving on past the relatively 'VERY old' perspective that the Universe is expanding is what you THINK/BELIEVE is "bogging down" the general communication' on this topic, then that might be something like what was being proposed to that one when they were just TRYING TO SHOW how the sun does NOT revolve around the earth. That person was probably seen as "bogging down" the 'general communication' in their time ALSO.
After all, how dare any person say any thing different than what is being talked about by such a "special" and "gifted" group of people as "scientists" are. If "we" say the Universe IS expanding and that the sun DOES revolve around the earth, then how dare any one say any thing different.
Okay thank you.
But since we are in this thread which is called: The expanding Universe -- Why and How we know it is expanding, then I will once again just ask for the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, which actually provides PROOF and SHOWS How 'you' KNOW the Universe is expanding.
The ACTUAL EVIDENCE for "Why" you KNOW the Universe is expanding is ALREADY OBVIOUS, and so I do NOT need to keep asking "why" nor for EVIDENCE to that one.
Oh by the way if i do NOT respond in that "assuming" thread in a few day or so, then can you please just remind me about it. My memory is not as good as it used to be.